On a Criterion For Canonicity/Orthodoxy

[Justin Kissel]

Consider this post a question out of curiosity rather than a return to normal posting I did want to get some feedback on something though.

I've written a couple times before on what makes a group "Orthodox" and "canonical". One of my criteria was something like this: "Canonically valid in it's formation"; ie., not just canonical in that they are following the canons presently, but it was my assertion that they had to have their very origin in proper canonical norms. So, for example, ROCOR would pass this criterion because they were following the guidelines of their Church when they "formed"; on the other hand, this criterion seemed to me to be a good way of cutting off many of the splinter groups that started with no real canonical basis, but purely for earthly/improper reasons.

I guess my problem is that this doesn't seem to have always been the case during Church history. In the fourth century, for instance, we had Meletios of Antioch. The fella was placed by Arians (or perhaps they were "semi-Arians," I don't recall offhand) as Patriarch in the see of Antioch, and right after he became Patriarch he turned his back on the Arians and issued an Orthodox statement of faith and started taking a "Nicene stance" (ie. Orthodox stance). The West (e.g., Rome), and the Alexanderians (e.g., Athanasius), were skeptical about his apparent switch, and refused to support him. He had, after all, been put there by Arians! The Cappadocians (e.g., Basil, Gregory Nazianzus, etc.) and most of the rest of the East, however, supported Meletios. Gregory of Nyssa even went to Antioch to support Meletios in a council. On the other hand, till the end of his life Athanasius refused to support him.

So what's the deal? There are similar "muddy waters" regarding the formation/establishment of certain local Orthodox Churches: this is by no means limited to individual patriarchs! So how does one defend--ecclesiologically speaking--against those who divide and divide and split and split, while at the same time taking into account that sometimes thing don't always go exactly by the books (ie. canons)? How is that done without using some vague formulaic add-on at the end, such as "unless the Holy Spirit directs the Church to do otherwise". Such a vague sentence would merely muddy the waters further and bring up multiple other questions. Anyone have any ideas?

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Justin,

From the very first day of the life of the Church, and even during the life of Christ, the Lords disciples have been in quarrels, debates, and arguments. The New Testament describes terrible doubting in the Resurrected Lord, the disciples arguing over which one of them was the greatest, Christians complaining that other ethnic groups of Christians were getting more than their share, Peter and Paul divided on the issues of circumcision, and how the Church Itself rose out from the masses of the poor and simple to challenge what everyone recognized as the established temple of God and its leaders who wielded all recognizable power and glory.

The early Church, as it grew, faced merciless persecutions driving the faithful into the bowels of the cities and forcing them to make secret signs and meeting places. Immediately after this (before too), the Church faced enormous heresies, like that of Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and Donatism, to name just a few. Many heresies were so successful, that for periods of hundreds of years they seemed to most to even be the established Church, with no less than two false

[Seraphim Reeves]

Laws, as guidelines, only go so far. This would obviously include canons... which is precisely why it is better to look at them as being a rule for Bishops, whose application can be severe or lenient, depending on their prudential assessment of the situation.

This is one reason why I'm disheartened by the sectarianism (which is simply applied legalism) of some aspects of the "traditionalist" movement. On paper their hyper-correctness sounds fine, but (imho) when rigidly applied to real life circumstances, it creates absurdities (and I dare say, blasphemy). It's also a-historical. There are any number of Saints whose lives would have to be judged unsatisfactory (at least their status as "Orthodox Christians") if we applied this sort of integrist attitude to them (right away, St.Isaac the Syrian comes to mind.)

Seraphim

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

The Apostle Paul says: "If I speak in human or angelic tongues, but I am without love, I am a sounding brass and a clanging gong. I may have the gift of prophecy, and know every hidden truth; I may even have faith strong enough to move mountains; but if I have no love, I am nothing."

Thank you for tempering my post, I would not want anyone to confuse theological Truth with the "correctness" of its expression.

Any teaching or doctrine which is not true and contrary to the Church is a heresy and a separation from God; and likewise, any practice which is not correct, well, is incorrect.

I would further add that if incorrect practice becomes so prominent or misleading that it begins to lead people into darkness or heretical thinking, then that is an equally important issue. An example here might be a church which has the Orthodox faith in every way, but their practice is not to fast, not to offer confession, in other words, remove the flavor of the "salt" and what are you left with, the Orthodox Church, the ark of salvation?

Another addition to your fine post in order that nobody is led down the easy paths and comfortable escapes of "strawman" stereotypes...

I beleive, as it has been my experience, that there are far fewer "super-correct" "traditionalists" than most have been led to believe. Most often, "correctness" is used to mask personal adgendas to create schisms. Which groups separated themselves because of heresy and which groups because of "correctness"? With these answers I believe you will be able to differentiate many of these splinter groups!

Also, there is nothing wrong with teaching correct practice and striving for it yourself for the sake of order in the Church and breaking of ones own will - after all, it is not just the Truth of Orthodoxy which separates us from all those other heretical confessions, but also the method of "cure". BUT THIS MUST BE DONE IN THE SPIRIT OF LOVE! Because for all and always, we are striving for salvation and those things which will lead us there.

[Justin Kissel]

Wow. That's it. I'm embarrassed that I missed it (and totally misunderstood what it was that I was trying to do). Thank you.